As your president, I want to take this opportunity to communicate directly with you about recent developments regarding our television and motion picture contract negotiations.

Last week, under the guidance of a federal mediator, we attempted to resolve our differences with the AMPTP. Our national negotiators and committee met with the mediator prior to our sessions with management, and followed the protocol and advice of the mediator. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts over two days to find creative solutions designed to move the process forward and to reach agreement, the federal mediator adjourned the mediation process early Saturday morning after concluding that mediation was over.

Now, per the resolution passed by 97% of our newly constituted national board of directors in October, we are launching a member education campaign and we will send out a strike referendum ballot to SAG members in December. We ask that you support your board and negotiating committee, and vote YES to authorize the board to call a strike only if it becomes absolutely necessary.

Your leadership believes that we must be empowered with the real threat of a work stoppage in order to let management know that we are committed to protecting the future of all actors. We ask for your support, knowing that you have entrusted us to fight for your rights, and to protect your wages, working conditions and your health and pension benefits. We take your trust very, very seriously and will work towards reaching a fair agreement without a work stoppage.

Management continues to apply its one-size-fits-all demands to SAG actors. And we continue to stress that actors have unique, reasonable needs that are different, not better, but different, than writers, directors and crewmembers. So they are telling us to allow the unions who negotiated before SAG to be our proxies. I wonder, would NBC ever let ABC negotiate its license fees for them? Of course not, but they think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask us to defer to the needs of other union workers and ignore what is critical to actors and their families.

It’s also curious that these global corporations are preaching to us about the bad economy. Like it’s our fault. As middle-income actors we are the victims of corporate greed. We didn’t cause this turmoil.

Now, more that ever, we need to take a unified stand, in solidarity, and protect the art of acting, and actors. I cannot stress this enough. Our ability to make our livings as professional actors for decades to come is at stake. New media is not an “experiment” as the employers want you to think. It’s their future, and it’s our future.

So please, don’t believe all the rhetoric management is sending over the airwaves and to the press. Please read your SAG emails and watch our website for the real facts.

In unity,
Alan Rosenberg

—
Statement in response by the AMPTP:

SAG’s latest mass email fails on three counts: It fails to explain why SAG deserves more than everyone else in the industry. It fails to justify why SAG members should bail out a failed negotiating strategy by striking during a time of historic economic crisis. And it fails to explain why it makes sense to strike when SAG members will lose more during the first few days of the strike than they could ever expect to gain.

Let’s take the 3 points of the AMPTP’s terse response to Rosenberg’s letter and get at the fallacious beliefs the AMPTP is blindly and foolishly clinging to

1) A different deal for actors does not necessarily mean a better deal for actors, but rather a deal that actors can work under and thrive under and help make the companies more profitable. Perhaps if the AMPTP would realize that the only commonality between a director, a writer, a producer, a crew member, and an actor is that those job titles all end in -r, they might be able to get past repetitive meaning-free rhetoric and get down to the business of wheeling and dealing. The sooner that the producers stop trying to inappropriately apply the principles of pattern bargaining to every different entertainment profession (all of which have distinctive needs that deserved to be acknowledged) the sooner we can declare mission accomplished re 2) below and avert 3)

2) It takes two (or more parties) and their good faith participation to actually negotiate. When one party insists on reserving 100% of the benefits to itself to the detriment that’s ransoming not deal making

3) The AMPTP has provided zero in the way of numbers regarding how much actors might lose if SAG is forced into striking not to mention zero in what it might cost the companies, their shareholders, others employed in the entertainment industry, others employed in businesses in entertainment industry cities and this country. I would suggest that the actually go and acquire these numbers and take a long hard look at them to realize that if SAG has to forego income to picket so will many others including the companies that hide behind the AMPTP rather than taking a leadership role and making good faith efforts to deal.

Moreover the AMPTP companies have a serious credibility problem as not only do they owe $60 million to SAG TV actors under force majeure which they refuse to pay but they owe the writers of the WGAE and WGAW for some as yet to be determined amount of new media residuals under what the AMPTP touts as its ‘great’ pattern bargained deal. That SAG does not trust the AMPTP companies to hold up their end of the bargains they make does not bode well for the AMPTP and believe me it’s not playing well with the general public as it learns of these breaches of contracts.

T-REX • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

1. SAG doesn’t “deserve” more than anyone else. SAG is rightly saying that what “everyone else” agreed to has ZERO to do with how this contract affects actors. You can’t try to shove a contract down actor’s throats (SAG actors at least – AFTRA has only their appeasing leaders to blame) that leads to no residuals – that is simply unacceptable. Residuals are important for directors and writers – they are VITAL for actors, who rely for up to 50% of their income on residuals.

As producers “move over” content to the internet, which they’re already doing quickly, the cable box will access ABC.com, NOT ABC. The consumer will watch the show, not knowing the difference, but the ACTOR will get paid ZERO in residuals for his or her work, because the content “originated” from ABC.com, therefore, the producers only have to abide by the terms of the “new media” agreement they are currently shoving down SAG’s throat, which pays actors NO RESIDUALS.

THAT’S why it’s different.

2. This myth of a “failed negotiating strategy” implies that the AMPTP EVER was willing to negotiate in the first place. IF that were true, then why do the other guilds ALL have the exact same terms for new media? Obviously, the AMPTP made a decision, well before ANY negotiations with ANY guild, too push the guilds out of real profit participation in the internet.

If they were serious, and wanted a “partner” in SAG, they would take a simple “percentage deal”: producer makes 100 million form original content for the internet? SAG gets X%. Producer makes 100 DOLLARS from original content for the internet? SAG gets EXACT SAME X%. If producer LOSES money on project? Producer has NO FIXED obligation to SAG.

Simple, right? Solves the problem, yes? Then why, ask yourself, is the AMPTP proposing instead, that SAG accept an army of nonunion workers in its own contract, and no residuals for content originating from the internet, so the AMPTP can have “flexibility” to “experiment” in new media?

Because the AMPTP has NO INTENTION OF ALLOWING FULL, TRANSPARENT, FAIR, PROFIT PARTICIPATION with SAG in new media – where ALL content will originate soon enough.

3. Short term “gains” or “losses” are offset by LONG-TERM business models. And THIS business model – of a road to no residuals, of actors becoming sandwich boards for producers to bring in advertising bucks to pay for parts of their budgets, of actors losing clip consent, which means producers can manipulate an actor’s image (aka his wallet) whenever, wherever, however they like, without asking or paying the actor, is a DISASTER for actors interested in a decent shot at making a living.

Stop bullshitting the industry and the public with these tired, false talking points, and wrap your heads around this: if the AMPTP doesn’t get serious about treating actors with respect and fairness in the new media realm, the AMPTP – NOT SAG – will be responsible for this work stoppage.

Suck on that, Nick Counter.

M.E. Tinker • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

VOTE TO STRIKE, if you don’t, you will get less than what is being offered now.

Bullies only respect brute force responses. Either be ready to fight, really fight, for your contractual rights or just give them everything.

It’s that simple, always is. You either have something worth fighting for or you have nothing.

SAG, now is your time to choose — YOU PAWNS or PLAYERS.

I don’t want a strike, as WGA, just went through that. But I do believe it’s better to stand up and draw a line and say NO MORE, than to be nickel and dimed into oblivion.

Good luck! Stay strong.

a • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

Economic times are rough, however that does not hide the fact that the AMPTP is attempting every maneuver in their repertoire to try and force SAG to sign this deal that will ultimately allow the studios to use mostly non-union actors on projects and pay as little in residuals to actors as possible, if anything at all. If the studios continue to profit from any new media project, so should actors. Good thing the “suits” have no imagination, otherwise they would have already gotten SAG to sign off.

DH • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

“SAG members will lose more during the first few days of the strike than they could ever expect to gain.”

– this statement whilst probably completely true is also completely irrelevant. Any strike is as much for future workers as the present. Caving in, would always lead to progressively worse and worse contract offers in coming negotiations.

WGA Writer • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

It doesn’t matter how terrible the AMPTP is or that Alan Rosenberg hasn’t got his day in court. There’s the perfect storm of reasons NOT to strike: a sagging economy, a contracting industry, and a town that simply cannot handle a second strike. Oh, and the fact that all this bluster is just pushing more productions toward AFTRA.

The people that support strike authorization simply do not understand politics. It’s not just about what’s right. It’s about timing and leverage and public support.

Every day that another strike cloud hovers over this industry is a day where there is less employment for actors, writers, and directors. Vote NO on strike authorization.

Michael F. Workman • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

All of this hysterical “dire economic” stuff from the AMPTP drives me crazy. It’s complete bullshit. Look at this transcript from the Barbara Walters/Obama interview tonight:

“WALTERS: Should bank executives — it’s almost Christmas time — forgo their bonuses?

OBAMA: I think they should. That’s an example of taking responsibility. I think that if you are already worth tens of millions of dollars, and you are having to lay off workers, the least you can do is say, I’m willing to make some sacrifice as well, because I recognize that there are people who are a lot less well off, who are going through some pretty tough times.”

The Big Media CEO’s are crying poverty, and laying off all the little guys, let’s hear a riposte stating the obvious: If you CEO’s are so broke, are you giving up your big bonuses? I wish I’d been in the negotiating session last week so I could have brought it up. The sound of AMPTP bodies hitting the floor would have been music to my ears. SAG: Fight back on this!

huh? • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

“So please, don’t believe all the rhetoric management is sending over the airwaves and to the press. Please read your SAG emails and watch our website for the real facts.”

-please only look at one side and one set of facts to make your decision???-huh??

“Now, more that ever, we need to take a unified stand, in solidarity, and protect the art of acting, and actors”

How does this contract deal with the “ART OF ACTING”? Huh?? What does the art of acting have to do with this debacle? This has nothing to do with the actual “art” of acting. I guess I wont win that Tony now that the ART of acting is under attack.

“It’s also curious that these global corporations are preaching to us about the bad economy. Like it’s our fault. As middle-income actors we are the victims of corporate greed. We didn’t cause this turmoil.”

Who said it was your fault? 911 wasn’t my fault but now when I fly I have to get to the airport sooner to go through increased security. The rain isn’t my fault either but I have to take extra care when driving in it. The housing collapse isn’t my fault either but I know my house isn’t worth what it once was. Its called the world we ALL live in. Reality, you should try it.

writer • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

What? The AMPTP thinks SAG’s strategy is bad? SAG should probably just do what the studios want then. I’m sure they know what’s best.

WGAw member

default • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

notice how the AMPTP uses the term “bail out” to tar SAG.

Nelsound • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

AAAAARRRGH!!!
The SAG contact expired June 30; after almost 6 months of limbo this is what we get? The world has changed a lot since then; has anyone noticed? We waited for negotiations to break down the first time. Then we waited for the SAG elections; we waited to read the tea leaves and see what the results meant. We waited for the mediator, Now we have to wait while they mount an education campaign (is there something new here that hasn’t already been said?); wait for the ballots, count the ballots and then wait for some more negotiations. And then will we have to wait for a strike?
I don’t know what goes on behind the closed doors while the powers that be negotiate, but it is clear that it is time for the conversation to move to a higher level and get this town working again. It is perhaps time to consider the greater good, because what pittance you gain after all this waiting is done may not be enough to get you your house back, or your savings, or get your kids through school.
Happy Thanksgiving.

Anonymous • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, hang tough SAG or it’s ever the has-been!

Mrs Garrett • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

So what is SAG asking for that is different than the other guilds asked for/got/didn’t get from AMPTP? Can anybody lay it out?

T-REX • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

Mrs. Garrett

Sure. SAG is, ideally, asking for a percentage deal. If a producer makes original content for the media, SAG would get X% of the distributors gross:

producer loses money on new media project? producer has no fixed obligation to SAG.

It’s a simple, idiot proof way to protect producers from fixed residuals (they say they need “flexibility” to “experiment” in new media) while tying SAG into their profit stream in a fair, transparent way.

The big problem for the AMPTP with that is transparency. Hollywood accounting is based on kind of a three card monty set-up “where’s the net points? Is it here, is here – or here?”

Hollywood moves money from hits to cover losses, they keep 2 sets of books – one public, one private, so they can claim they haven’t reached “profitability” yet, therefore they don’t have to pay out points, and a hundred other ways they basically operate under a business model of cooking the books.

So, they have the DGA, WGA and AFTRA, all having signed a new media provision in their new contracts that sets up these “floors” of 15 k per minute for original content for the internet UNDER which they can make content entirely nonunion. The current cost of original content for the internet? 2 thousand dollars per minute.

This invites an army of nonunion actors in to make product for the AMPTP, in a way it doesn’t effect directors or writers nearly as badly.

SAG has NEVER allowed a huge nonunion space in their own contract – it’s against the core principles of the union.

Another core principal is “fair payment for all reuse of actors work (residuals).

If this deal is signed as is, the producers will continue to “move over” content to the internet as fast as they can. So, you, at home, before too long, will watch something on ABC.com instead of ABC.

The content will have been producer FOR ABC.com in the first place. Therefore, the producers will only have to pay the residual required under the language of this new media provision, which is:

ZERO.

So, SAG is saying, that since actors, as opposed to directors and writers, who get large up-front fees, rely on residuals for up to 50% of their income, that this phase out of residuals will essentially put middle-class actors out of business.

Having said all that, as an example of how far SAG has gone to try to make a deal – the other night, they said to the AMPTP “we will sign the new media terms AS IS – IF you will give us a slight raise in the DVD residuals, basically enough to cover health and pension contributions because, 24 years ago, when you promised us you’d revisit and renegotiate if VHS/DVD took off, you never did.

So – if you give us a slight raise in DVD now, we can try to sell to our membership that it was an act of good faith showing you WILL return to new media to renegotiate in three years.

The AMPTP’s response?

“NO.”

SAG tried variations on that theme for two marathon sessions. The AMPTP’s response?

“NO.”

Did the AMPTP suggest ANYTHING in return?

“NO.”

That was it. No effort by them at all to compromise, lots of effort by SAG to make a deal.

SAG has suspected, all along, that the AMPTP never had any intention of good faith negotiation, but wanted from day one, to push the guilds ESPECIALLY actors out of profit participation in new media, where ALL content will originate from soon enough.

Also, SAG is simply asking the AMPTP to pay the 60 million dollars in force majeure payments they owe actors from the writers strike. The AMPTP?

“NO.”

PLUS – the AMPTP wants to take the right of force majeure away from actors, which we’ve had since 1937.

Clip consent. An actors image is his wallet. Actors are now required to be ASKED and PAID if the AMPTP wants to use a clip of them for some reason. This contract – no clip consent. So, an actors image would be able to be used anywhere, everywhere, anytime by the producers, in any way they wanted. No asking permission, no payment.

Product Placement. The AMPTP wants to make actors walking sandwich boards to make actors do commercials for products in film and TV without paying them. So, in that episode of “Two and a Half Men” the actor is holding a container of Tide detergent through an entire scene, and the producers make the writers find a way to have the actor comment on how clean the clothes are – stuff like that.

Which means, if that actor also does commercials – he doesn’t get another detergent commercial, because there he is promoting tide in perpetuity on one episode of “Two and a Half Men” he made scale for – and he promoted it FOR FREE!!

The list goes on – but those are the biggies. It’s an un-signable contract for SAG because it would essentially wipe out middle class actors in the age of new media, which is rapidly upon us.

Let’s be very clear here. This strike will be the end of SAG’s position as the prominent on camera talent agency of note. There is no win for actors with this strike. The unfortunate part is that the losses will be immense. Here is the chain of events as they will happen:

1. Immediately, every single TV show in development, and all future shows going into development will be placed under AFTRA signatory companies rather than SAG. The studios will say, “fuck it.” Reverting back to SAG will happen on a declining basis. Result: SAG’s jurisdiction in television becomes nominal for the foreseeable future.

2. During the strike, networks will begin to fill the void in the schedule with inexpensive non-scripted programming as they’ve done in the past. Result: Hours once dedicated to actors will evaporate. When/if they return, they won’t be paying quotes and network rates. Shows will come in at low budgets in order to get on the air and they’ll stay low throughout the life of the show. Result: Fewer hours available for actors on network television and market conditions will push pay rates downward for the foreseeable future.

3. Non-union indie films will continue to get made. They’ll find more financing as money earmarked for studio films can’t get triggered due to the strike. Those films, once complete, go to market and major distributors pick them up for worldwide distribution. Result: The majors still get product to sell regardless of the union status during production of a given project. Moreover, no union talent worked or will participate in any of those films as they hit theaters and ancillary markets around the world.

5. On the new media front, if SAG wins its ask on the finished show / distribution side then actors will see a few extra hundred dollars a year for their efforts. If SAG wins its point on the new media production side, well, that’s worse. No online show with a budget of less than $15k per minute can afford SAG’s ask. That means, they won’t go SAG. It’s that simple. If SAG wins their ask of looping new media productions, even those with budgets under $15k per minute, into the main deal then internet productions will NOT go SAG. SAG actors will be forced, by their own union, to forgo the boundless opportunities on the internet because productions will not be signatory. WGA members and DGA members operate under a special internet deal for low budget shows, allowing them to work on these projects, some of which will go to a bigger medium (where standard deal terms kick in), grow organically on the internet, or sell worldwide. SAG members will be excluded.

In the end (and beginning, really), SAG and its members lose so much with a strike. The winners? Non-scripted producers, cable television, AFTRA and every website out there that distributes premium content online; Hulu.com, NBC.com, ABC.com, Joost, MySpace, etc.

With regard to the authorization vote, let’s not forget, only a fraction of SAG members actually make their living through acting. The vast majority of SAG members have nothing to lose either way because they make their living in other professions. Moreover, the most successful of SAG’s members aren’t paid through the minimums outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. We are going to see less than 10% of the working actors within the SAG constituency lose their jobs because of a vote the other 90% casts. That’s like a labor union in Michigan being composed of U of M students rather than auto workers. Imagine if a bunch of idealistic, pissed and very much well intentioned 19 year olds voted for the new assembly line contract. How would it look? Imagine if they became so incensed that they voted for a strike? Would that be the right move?

As part of a small minority who will benefit from this strike, I watch with curious eyes. Because it blows my mind that this is actually going to happen.

blivit • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

hey curious,

if you are someone who “will benefit from this strike”, why have you posted a diatribe that’s a laundry list of reasons not to strike?

just an altruistic gesture from a producer of reality TV?

you’re full of it.

butt out.

Nat Segaloff • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

I have a question about jurisdiction: is there still a SAG/AFTRA demarcation between tape and film — that film=SAG and tape/live=AFTRA? If so, which union has jurisdiction over solid state digital storage that’s neither film nor tape? If a production company is a SAG signatory can it simply click its heels together three times and switch to AFTRA? I can think of twice in the past when unions have gotten into pissing contests over technology and management did an end run around them. One was in the Golden Age when actors performed live under AFTRA, but kinescopes of the shows were deemed to be SAG, and to break the tie the networks destroyed the kinnies instead of paying residuals. Another was in the late 1970s when electronic news-gathering technology (ENG) came into play and the IBEW claimed jurisdiction because the medium was tape, as in the studio, but IATSE also claimed jurisdiction because the cameras were being used outdoors, as with newsfilm. In the scuffle, many local stations declared themselves non-union. Is there any comparison between that and the current situation?

T-REX • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

Curious (AMPTP shill?)

Nice talking points: let’s destroy them, shall we?

First, I love the crystal ball. Maybe that can be your second job, if you actually even are an actor, or you’re a suit who gets thrown out of wor?: “Madame Curious’s Bullshit Predictions”

Most, or all, jurisdiction going to AFTRA. Well, some will – some has. But all? That’s horseshit. AFTRA’s name is shit right now with actors, SAG actors, dual card holders, etc. IF AFTRA starts to ramp up the “kick them when they’re down” strategy they are so gleefully pursuing right now?

Believe me, once this is over, the next vote that will go out, already printed on Membership First’s website will say “would you rather be represented by SAG or AFTRA.”

Simple question. Given the consistency of AFTRA’s shitty, 3rd rate, give ’em what they want contracts? It’s really a no-brainer for actors. The vote will come back huge for SAG, then, as MF has already said, they’ll walk across the hall to the AFTRA offices (which SAG pays for – hopefully we will have kicked them the fuck out by then, and thrown all their shit out the window) and inform them “you’re out of the business of representing actors. Here’s the number – 87% (a likely percentage) of all dual card holders who picked SAG – so, you can’t stop them from no longer working AFTRA contracts – it will take a little while, actors on AFTRA shows will run out their contracts, but all new shows will have a unified approach: “No AFTRA.” SAG actors, united by the common understanding and choice that SAG is, and always has been, the far more powerful and effective union on their behalf, will phase AFTRA’s representation of actors out.

2. If SAG strikes, and prevails, the networks will NOT be in a position to treat SAG like shit: they’ll WANT SAG actors to fill programming, programming that begins to slide even further into reality and game show shit once TV producers begin to run out of product. This business is as star driven as ever – consumers want to see the shows they love with the actors they love. I don’t see that position in the TV landscape disappearing because of a strike.

3. Nonunion indie films? Some several hundreds of them ALREADY have waivers to shoot from SAG, with SAG actors. Some are shooting now, some will shoot in the next few weeks and months. All SAG actors will be eligible to work in those films.

BUT, “NONUNION films?

Being bought by the studios and packaged as studio movies? Nope. That means nonunion actors – complete unknowns, and in many cases, not particularly talented people, STARRING in films that STUDIOS ACQUIRE, then pump big money into to promote, as if they’ll fool the public that this the same level of product Hollywood normally puts out?

That’s complete bullshit. The public is not that stupid, and, more importantly, the STUDIOS would never throw money down a black-hole of nonunion films with nonunion actors, Not gonna happen. Stars are THE vital ingredient in TV and Film. And the stars? ALL of whom are SAG?

Will be on strike.

4. Animation. Notice how even animated films are voiced by mostly stars? Why is that? Because studios have come to understand that having a star get out there and promote the animated film, turns it into a star-driven, not-so-much-animation driven vehicle. It will be very difficult to promote expensive animated films without star voices. The studios will think long and hard about making expensive animated films without Cameron Diaz or Jack Black or Ben Stiller to get out there and hump the movie.

5. SAG’s “ask” (this has to be a suit writing this)in new media. SAG has bent over backwards to offer flexible deals for producers to make new media content WITH union actors.

As to the “winners” – sure IF Veoh and Hulu and MySpace and AFTRA and the others aren’t faced with a competitive SAG, sure, THEN, they’ll be winners.

But the entire point here is SAG is near getting to that final conversation where they walk into the negotiating room and say to Nick Counter “here’s the strike authorization – do YOU really want to cause a work stoppage because YOU want to push SAG actors out of a fair and transparent profit participation in new media? Because of “pattern bargaining?” Your call Nick.”

Believe me – SAG striking is a DISASTER for the AMPTP.

ALL studio film stops. On a dime. ALL prime-time network SAG TV – 95% of it – stops. On a dime. Will there be holes that the AMPTP will attempt to fill in TV? Sure. Does SAG have any choice in the matter? Not if they’re forced to strike by the AMPTP. But, SAG, as well as SAG actors will be, shall we say, less than thrilled if AFTRA takes advantage of the situation as an opportunity to poach more jurisdiction. Can they do it? Sure. Will they? Much, much less certain.

As to “qualified voting” well, that ship has sailed Curious. SAG IS a particular union, but one that honors the voting rights of its members – ALL its members. If you happen to have been a regular on that ’70’s or ’80’s series, but haven’t worked in a few years, the “qualified voting” people, want to take your vote away. Completely undemocratic, completely unacceptable, and practically zero chance of it happening. Now, or ever.

So, AMPTP shill, trying to push the doom and gloom – hit the road. If the AMPTP weren’t being such unmitigated pricks, we wouldn’t be in this position. They have no one to blame but themselves.

LP • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

T-Rex,
what planet do you live on?

Mad as hell • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

While all this self-righteous and self-important talk about future generations and what is right is all very interesting in theory. Here is the practical reality of a strike: innocent people will lose their jobs, homes, cars, etc. if this strike happens. I will be one of them, and you can be sure that I will take all my spare time to drop by the picket lines to tell you all to go to hell! The reality about acting (I know this because I was a professional union actor for 7 years) is that it is so hard to make a living at it because there is too much competition for too few jobs. The odds of success are essentially no better than a lottery. You might get lucky and become a star, or what is more likely is that you will live and die in relative poverty and obscurity. Or you can come to your senses as I did and do something else for a living so you can have a family, a house, and a life that is about something other than this business. I now work as an editor: a union job where I get no residuals. My question is this then: why does someone who makes almost $1000 a day need to be paid over and over again for work that was done weeks/days/months earlier? Let’s look at the end of the residual system this way: you don’t deserve them! If you can’t work enough to get paid your bloated minimums regularly, then you should be doing something else for a living…as most of you already are!

T-REX • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

Mad as Hell
Sorry you crapped out as an actor. If we have to strike and you follow through on your pledge to stop by the picket lines and tell us all to “go to hell” – a little advice – make it a drive by. Don’t get out of your car.

LP

The planet of union workers with the courage to do what’s right. How are things on the planet of “Cowardly invertebrates?”

Peggy Nichols • on Nov 26, 2008 11:14 am

Just to clarify things, Alan Rosenberg…. crew members are NEVER in
a position to call for a strike! We, unfortunately have to be suffer through a work stoppage because of SAG, DGA and WGA’s fighting with the AMPTP. We are in complete mercy of what happens so dont you dare
include us in your message to your members. It does not apply.
PN

I’m shocked, I tell you, just shocked, that you couldn’t make a living as an actor. Directors always seek to spend 12 hours a day with the most bitter, negative, hateful, and potentially violent people they can find. Producers feel that there’s no better free publicity then some angry dude climbing to the top of a sound stage and start letting a few rounds loose after self medicating.

As an alternative theory for why you couldn’t make a living acting and now have rage and hate toward those of us who can and do, did you ever consider that maybe you simply … what’s the word .. oh yeah … sucked?

Yes, I’m sure that you showing up on lines to “tell us all to go to hell” will improve your life greatly both financially and emotionally. Why get anger management counseling when you can manage your time so much more wisely for your financial and emotional benefit, right? But can you borrow somebody’s blood pressure meds, please, because it’s such a -bummer- when some red faced eyes bulging out of their head angry person who spends their life being enraged at others drops on the pavement a starts convulsing. Real buzz kill.

After you, as you say, “an innocent person” lose your job car and house, this fine holiday season, due solely to the fault of others, I’m sure, and not your personal demons, please call 1-800-784-2433 before you Jim Jone’s your families eggnog (unless they request it, since you sound like such a dear to live with). Because remember, a virtual hug is just a free phone call away!